Evidence of meeting #38 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pei.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Leonard Russell  Chair, Commission on P.E.I.’s Electoral Future
Jordan Brown  Chair, Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, Special Legislative Committee on Democratic Renewal
Jane Ledwell  Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women
Marcia Carroll  Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities
Marie Burge  Member, Cooper Institute
George Hunter  As an Individual
Brenda Oslawsky  As an Individual
Mary Cowper-Smith  As an Individual
Sylvia Poirier  As an Individual
Judy Shaw  As an Individual
Donna Dingwell  As an Individual
Lewis Newman  As an Individual
Darcie Lanthier  As an Individual
Josh Underhay  As an Individual
Leo Cheverie  As an Individual
Anna Keenan  As an Individual
Dawn Wilson  Executive Director, PEI Coalition for Women in Government
Don Desserud  Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Prince Edward Island, As an Individual
Peter Bevan-Baker  As an Individual
Eleanor Reddin  As an Individual
Lucy Morkunas  As an Individual
Teresa Doyle  As an Individual
Philip Brown  As an Individual
Ron MacMillan  As an Individual
Peter Kizoff  As an Individual
Patrick Reid  As an Individual

3:25 p.m.

Marie Burge Member, Cooper Institute

First of all, thank you for the invitation to Cooper Institute to come and present this afternoon. It's wonderful to be able to make this presentation on behalf of Cooper Institute.

I'd like to thank you especially for taking the lid off Leonard Russell. We haven't heard Leonard Russell talk like that since 2005, and he didn't talk like that in 2005. That was a joy, I must say. I was around in 2005, as you can probably guess.

I'll just say a little about Cooper Institute and how we figure into this. Cooper Institute is a community-based social justice collective. We work in communities across Prince Edward Island on social, economic, and ecological issues that are vital to island residents. The objective of all our work—we have deliberately chosen our objective—is the promotion of democracy. It's for the voice of people to come from the people. What we want is a full promotion of democracy in its full meaning.

We are proud members of the P.E.I. coalition for proportional representation, so you might hear a bit of a bias.

We welcomed the opening up of the electoral reform prospects again for P.E.I. It was really important that it be opened up again, because it was not addressed properly and fully in 2005 because of a lot of restrictions, which Leonard brought out. It's also really good to have this question brought up on the federal level.

We long to see the end of the first-past-the-post system—that it's gone, period—and we really hope for proportional representation.

It is surprising and a bit disheartening, however, that both levels of government, if supporting any change—and I'll put the “if” there—seem to be leaning in favour of a preferential ballot, ranked ballot, alternative vote, or whatever you want to call it. In the case of P.E.I., there are signs that, in the midst of all this discussion, the powers within the Liberal and Conservative parties may even be promoting retaining first past the post, which has served them well over the years. The resulting lopsided majorities and absolute power have not served Islanders well. They have served the parties well.

Preferential ballot is not an electoral system. Research shows that this method serves up similar lopsided majorities and absolute power to first past the post. Preferential ballot is merely a mechanism. It should not be on our list. It is not a choice. That's the first point.

Preferential ballot is merely a mechanism, and it can be used within various systems. It's how the votes are counted and the manner in which people actually express their vote, in terms of one, two, or three. It is a helpful mechanism for vote counting in both the winner-take-all systems and the proportional systems. It's a mechanism, not a system. There is no place in the world where ranked ballot or preferential ballot is used as an electoral system. It will be a very accommodating mechanism for us in calculating the results of the P.E.I. plebiscite, so again, it's a mechanism that will be used, but it shouldn't be on our plebiscite ballot.

Some commentators have pointed out that AV even appears to be a partisan solution for one party. The projections are that the Liberals would have won 224 seats in the last election if we had used preferential ballot. When we look at that, we really have to say it's a criticism, and it certainly is not a leaning that we would expect to come from the federal government.

I just have some comments on the plebiscite. A plebiscite, first of all, is a flawed instrument for democratic decision-making on electoral reform. That's our position. First of all, the results of a plebiscite are not binding on the government. People may be shocked. Voters would be really shocked to discover that, once again, their vote means so little.

The choices on the plebiscite ballot involve the creation of new knowledge on the part of voters. New knowledge doesn't come from the top down. It doesn't come from consultations. It doesn't come from lectures, and it doesn't come from displays. It comes from the full engagement of people in their communities and from their own interests. This takes time, it takes resources, and it takes non-interference from the defenders of power.

The other thing about plebiscites is that democracy is not enhanced by resorting to an election-style campaign to convince people to opt for one choice over another, without regard for voters really understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each option for a community's well-being.

We have another situation across the country, but we especially experience it here in P.E.I., which is that the Canadian election culture is, unfortunately, rooted in the mentality of a two-party system, even though we have a history of many parties at the federal level, although not so much at the provincial level. We have a two-party mentality. We hear in P.E.I. a lot, and I'm sure you hear it across the country, that a third or fourth party took the votes away. They took somebody's vote away because they voted for the NDP or the Green Party. That's the language we hear.

The experience of voting Liberal or Conservative, which is P.C. in P.E.I., in a winner-loser sports model, gives us a grim picture of two parties vying with each other for absolute power. We have not just a two-party system mentality but two parties. Any real transition to a democratic and representative democracy will require some serious growing up on the part of political parties. The test of maturity is that they acknowledge that democracy is not about them. Democracy is not about political parties. In a truly democratic electoral system, every person's vote counts. We know all of that.

Something that touches us really deeply, as one of the Atlantic provinces, is the fact that in the federal election, the Liberals won every seat in Atlantic Canada, despite the fact that 40% of the region's voters actually voted for other parties. We have right in front of us here, close to home, an example of the total wipeout of other parties.

Finally, from our perspective, only proportional representation can give us any semblance of opening up true democracy as the voice of people. Once again, we say that this is not only the parties. We must adopt a form of government that truly represents the makeup of a community in terms of gender, ethnicity, country of origin, ability, and race.

Thank you very much.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

We'll go to our rounds of questioning, starting with Mr. Aldag.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Thank you.

It's wonderful to have the diversity of opinions you presented today. It's a bit different from our first panel. It's always fantastic when we have an all-female panel. The perspectives you bring are really appreciated.

Again, there are newcomers in the audience. I look forward to hearing from members of the public this afternoon. Thanks for joining us.

I'm going to begin with a bit of a discussion about proportional representation. Each of you has spoken very succinctly about the benefits of change and about doing something other than first past the post. As we've travelled the country, we've heard many positive things about proportional representation systems.

We have seen electoral reform before, and in some cases, it has failed and we have ended up remaining with first past the post. I'm hopeful that our committee is going to be able to come up with a consensus report that will give our government something to work with. If any or all of your organizations have looked at the possibility of improvements within the existing system, I'd like your thoughts on what some of those things could be.

As an example, if we're concerned about women's low participate rate, what kinds of incentives can be given? What kinds of disincentives can be created for parties? It is the same for persons with disabilities and others who may be disenfranchised from participating. I'd simply like to throw that out, if any of your organizations have looked within the first-past-the-post system. Are there other improvements that could be made?

Second, when you balance out those kinds of improvements versus moving completely to a proportional representation system, are you still committed to PR or some form of PR as the preferred solution?

The first part is whether there are other things we could do within the existing system, and the second is, given the option, which is the best way to go.

3:35 p.m.

Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Jane Ledwell

I don't mind starting.

First, significant changes could be made to help increase the number of women in politics in the current system, and I would submit, in any electoral system that we change to. I don't think it's inherent in this system or in any system to provide incentives and supports of the kinds that are needed to genuinely increase the number of women. Those incentives need to include things like mandated targets for diversity, requirements to comply with targets or explain missed targets, comply and explain mechanisms, financial incentives, or penalties for meeting targets. Best practices are legislated quotas, but there's no appetite for that in Prince Edward Island or here. We would be in favour of more positive incentives than negative incentives.

Then there are direct supports for candidates that would increase the number of women and diverse groups. That could include child care expenses being covered, which they currently aren't under what Elections P.E.I. is able to cover as a support during elections, direct financial support, some things like that. All systems, including first past the post, require those kinds of things. They are not inherent in the electoral system, but in the structures we put around it.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Just to clarify, you're saying that under any system, those types of things could be put in place to improve the participation of women. You've given a nice package of options, and I don't think we've heard all of them before. If you have something prepared that you could submit to the committee that we could consider, that would be really useful.

3:35 p.m.

Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Jane Ledwell

We would probably do that through the Coalition for Women in Government. I think they've probably got a little more information on that, but yes.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

That's perfect, thanks.

3:35 p.m.

Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities

Marcia Carroll

I would agree with Jane and most of the statements she's making. Those types of incentives could be imposed to encourage people with disabilities to run as well and be engaged in the electoral system. Currently, we know that people with disabilities in this country are some of the poorest and most disenfranchised. To have those individuals run against somebody in their community who is known to one of the parties in power in our first-past-the-post system is very frightening.

We hear that all the time from the people we talk to when it comes time for elections. We really encourage people with a disability to go through a nomination process and try to be represented on the ballot. More often than not, they don't want to go against one of the other parties and they're not encouraged within our two-party system to be their candidate.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

That's an interesting one. Why wouldn't you encourage persons with disabilities and other challenges to run within one of the main two parties? It's a bit disheartening to hear that there may be barriers within existing systems, within the main parties, to prevent that.

Are there things that parties should be considering to be more inclusive in the nomination process?

3:35 p.m.

Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities

Marcia Carroll

Absolutely. There are ways you can support people with disabilities, like holding your nomination meetings in accessible buildings, using plain language when you develop your platforms, having your materials in alternative formats such as Braille, having sign language at meetings like today's or in the nomination process. When they don't have them, those are all barriers for people with disabilities. It doesn't—

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

You can finish the thought, but we have to move on after listening.

3:40 p.m.

Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities

Marcia Carroll

It's a way to create an inclusive space and allow people with disabilities to feel valued.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Carroll, following up on your concluding remarks, in my party, the Conservative Party, in 2008, I proposed an amendment to our constitution to change the way in which we elect our leader so that it would take place by means of a mail-in ballot. That was partly to deal with accessibility issues for people who are disabled or for people who are far away from polling stations and don't have a driver's licence, and so on. Obviously, the same problems that exist in a party exist within a federal or provincial electoral system. I think you are right to be concerned.

Also, there is no regulation that requires nominations to be in accessible buildings, although there are rules about formal polling stations under the Canada Elections Act, so that's good advice for those of us, Ms. Sahota and I, for example, who sit on another committee that deals with reviewing the Elections Act. Thank you for that thought.

3:40 p.m.

Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities

Marcia Carroll

Another thing as well is that there are no regulations around campaign headquarters being in accessible buildings, which really dissuades people from being involved in the electoral process, from being engaged in promoting the candidates they believe in.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Although at least at that level I can say, as somebody who has been a candidate six times now, you have a strong incentive to get people involved and you don't want to turn people away, so at least that's there. For nominations, I'm not so sure.

I wanted to ask you, Ms. Carroll, a question and I'd like to ask Ms. Ledwell about it as well, and if we have time also Ms. Burge. There were criticisms of the way in which the plebiscite was conducted in 2005, or 2007—whatever the year was—in that not enough information was put out. There were also complaints about accessibility, a smaller number of polling stations than normal. This time around, as I understand it, a completely different approach is going on. It's over several days instead of one day, and it's electronic, at least for those who want to use that.

In your view, is this a good way of handling this issue? I'm interested in what you you have to say on this. One of our mandates is to look at electronic voting and accessibility issues, so I'll put that out first to Ms. Carroll, and then to Ms. Ledwell and Ms. Burge.

3:40 p.m.

Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities

Marcia Carroll

I think those are positive steps. Any way you can get voters to get out and vote is certainly something we would support.

One of the challenges with the current plebiscite is the ballot. It's certainly confusing. Now you have to fill in the circle where traditionally for hundreds of years Islanders have voted with Xs. There is some stuff that makes it feel like they're not really trying to be as accessible as they're saying they're trying to be.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Have they accommodated visually impaired people with that? I know there is a system. Under the first-past-the-post system you get a template. If you're visually impaired or you're completely blind they tell you that candidate A is here and candidate B is there, and you know where to go. The officer leaves and you can tick off the right box. Is there something for visually impaired people?

3:40 p.m.

Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities

Marcia Carroll

Therein lies a challenge because we've never been consulted on how the ballot should look and how people with visual impairment should be encouraged or supported to vote.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you.

Is there time for Ms. Ledwell?

3:40 p.m.

Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Jane Ledwell

Just briefly, I'd say that I think Elections P.E.I. is doing a much better job on public education and engagement than in the 2005 plebiscite, and that the ballot is a challenge.

The titles of the electoral systems are a challenge. There's no plain language lens that is going to let you describe five electoral systems in any way that is understandable, and the translations into French are even less accessible.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

That's an interesting point.

Before we go to Ms. Burge, is this a problem that could have been overcome or is it a problem that, in your mind, is insurmountable? This is obviously relevant when we look toward the federal context.

3:40 p.m.

Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Jane Ledwell

If you are faced with a ballot with a title of an electoral system, that is challenging, yes.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Sure, thank you.

Ms. Burge.

3:45 p.m.

Member, Cooper Institute

Marie Burge

One of the concerns I have about people having access to voting is that P.E.I. has to be the centre of patronage. It's really hard to explain to people how difficult it is for an Islander to actually be free to vote because there is a lot of political party control over people's lives. It has to do with the level of poverty that's here. That's probably true in other regions of the country that have similar levels, but in P.E.I. once we hear that one of the major parties, or both of them, are contacting voters, that has an influence that you cannot imagine anywhere else because for people their livelihoods and the lives of their families are very connected to two parties, and has been. It's a long history and parties have used that. They use it on election day. They use it during election campaigns in ways that are quite astounding.

When we're talking about the access that people have, the access of the general public to actual free decisions about their vote is very limited.